NPR Drones and Disappearing Civilian Casualties

It took awhile, but on Tuesday morning (3-22-11) NPR finally got around to covering (covering up) the March 17th drone-slaughter of civilians in AfPak. On the positive side, the report did feature the dire mental health effects that drone strikes have on residents of the area, and Julie McCarthy did contact a shopkeeper who ends the report by explaining:

"If anyone thinks that people here are happy over the drone strikes, they are foolish....In fact, the drones are fomenting hatred against the government and turning the people against America. We are killed by drones and then labeled as terrorists."

However, the story is undermined from the start. Steve Inskeep kicks things off this way,

"An attack last week reportedly killed at least 40 people. Some WERE militants but most are DESCRIBED as tribal elders." [No mention of where the confirmation of "militants" came from or why those other dozens are only "described" as elders.]

From this modest beginning, Julie McCarthy goes full-in:

"The U.S. has been conducting a covert program using unmanned drones to target militants in Pakistan since 2004. According to the Long War Journal, an authoritative website, the large majority of the 2,000 killed since 2006 were from the Taliban, al-Qaida and affiliated groups."

This statement tells you a lot about the rigor of NPR's standards. If thoroughly enmeshed with US state security/military institutions means authoritative - then the Long War Journal (LWJ) is very authoritative. Take a look at its website where you'll find out that its managing editor Bill Roggio has close ties to the conservative Hoover Institute and The Weekly Standard, frequently embeds with the US and allied militaries, and "presents regularly at the US Air Force's Contemporary Counterinsurgency Warfare School on the media and embedded reporting" (oh, and he also "served as a signalman and infantryman in the US Army and the New Jersey National Guard from 1991 to 1997.") As the LWJ masthead indicates, it is a project of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies - which a glance at its "Who We Are" section (rogues gallery) reveals what kind of "authoritative" viewpoint one can expect from the LWJ:

"Our Leadership Council of Distinguished Advisors includes former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former State Department Under Secretary Paula Dobriansky, Forbes CEO Steve Forbes, former National Security Advisor Robert “Bud” McFarlane, former Ambassador Max Kampelman, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey."

No surprise then that the LWJ's snappy charts claim - absent of any hard evidence - that in 2010, US airstrikes killed 801 Taliban/al-Qaeda operatives and only 14 civilians. In all the searching I've done it is clear that hard evidence is extremely difficult to come by - and that estimated of rates of civilian casualties in US drone strikes range from very high (over 90%) to high (about 30%) to low (3.5% ) to the LWJ's very low 1.7%! Given that the US and Pakistani governments have every reason to low-ball civilian casualties - and given that the US military always denies civilian casualties unless confronted by hard evidence - only a propagandist for the US military would claim a source for the lowest number as "authoritative."

This opting for the lowest numbers of civilian victims of the US long, long, long war is nothing new on NPR, in fact it's their gold standard.

The Murderer Known as Prince from the Company Formerly Known as Blackwater

UPDATED BELOW:

Leave it to NPR to find a way to "cover" the Blackwater assassination squad and drone squad story without ever mentioning Erik Prince's uber-creepy dominionist Christian vision and lust for wiping out Muslims. And of course no point in bringing up charges that Prince may have a room on his hit list for employees who might cooperate with federal investigators.

Instead of turning to Jeremy Scahill, the expert who literally wrote the book on Blackwater - NPR turns Robert Siegel loose for a comfy chat with loyal New York Times reporter Mark Mazetti who in the course of the interview, incredibly claims that the New York Times has determined that CIA-employed Blackwater hitmen never killed anyone (I guess someone at the CIA confirmed that for him?) Mazetti also finds time to tell us that drones have been used for attacks on militants (no civilians there).

All we learn from Mazetti is that Blackwater was involved in the "never-used" hit squads and was helping provide security and operations for loading missiles on drones in the AfPak region. Mazetti downplays the significance, attributing it to the US being shorthanded when it comes to running covert operations...sheesh....

UPDATE:
Here are the remarks of Mazetti mentioned above:

• [Regarding all the civilians killed by US drones.] "...the pilotless drone airplanes, the Predators or the Reapers...are used regularly to attack militants in Pakistan."

• ["Confirming" that black ops were never committed.] "As we've reported over the last month, there was never an actual operation performed as part of this program."

• [As to why the CIA hired Blackwater - no mention of the obvious benefit of "plausible deniability"] "The security officers are needed in other parts of either Afghanistan and Pakistan or other parts of the world. And the feeling is that having Blackwater employees do the security and some of this more maintenance-type work is a good value for the government."

- and -

• When 9/11 happened and all of a sudden the CIA and the Pentagon and intelligence services became a lot busier, they all of a sudden had more to do than they actually had people for. So they looked to outside contractors to fill in the gaps."

A Militant Funeral

NPR may struggle mightily with what to call torture - "the problem is that the word torture is loaded with political and social implications for several reasons, including the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties the United States has signed" - but when it comes to human beings killed by the US military, be they civilians or irregular forces, there's no hesitation: they are militants plain and simple.

This morning David Greene introduces another drone attack story by claiming that the "US has struck again at militants near the border with Afghanistan. The American airstrikes yesterday killed at least 45 militants...." Greene then turns things over to Julie McCarthy who says, "The details of the assault on the remote tribal area of South Waziristan - known as Pakistan's badlands - are still emerging, but local media report that dozens of militants were killed when three drone missiles were fired on Taliban fighters as they gathered for a funeral of fellow militants."

There are a few problems with Greene and McCarthy's reporting. Despite the heavy civilian toll of past drone attacks, Greene asserts as fact that "at least 45 militants" were killed. So where is the evidence? How does he know any of them were "militants." McCarthy notes that details "are still emerging," but that doesn't stop her from claiming that "local media report that dozens of militants were killed," that they were "Taliban fighters," and that it was a "funeral of fellow militants." So what local media is McCarthy referring to, and just how were the dead identified as "Taliban fighters"?

It's interesting to look at other reports of the same attack. According to the BBC

"At least 43 people have died in missile strikes by a US drone aircraft in a militant stronghold of Pakistan, a Taliban spokesman has told the BBC."

Pretty basic journalistic practice. "People" get killed, and the allegations are sourced. The Guardian goes even further noting that "one local security official, who could not be identified as he was not authorised to speak to media, said that more than 60 had died of whom 'half are civilians'." Civilians? What do you know, another detail that NPR somehow missed.

In addition to the factual vagaries of the report, Greene and McCarthy's casual attitude about unmanned killing machines and attacks on a funeral is really disturbing. So now it's acceptable military practice to bomb funerals? It's telling that when the word is torture NPR is concerned about "the fact that torture is illegal under U.S. law and international treaties," but when they are using language favorable to the US military there is no such concern.

Rumors of His Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated - NPR Champions Drone Attacks Again

In the comments section, NPR Check reader "Gopol" took note of more Drone Love from NPR on Friday morning. With his permission I'm posting his critique.

Where do these reporters come from? Mary Louise Kelly graduated from Harvard in 1993. Just in time for the Contract On America to usher in fellow Harvard grad Keven Klose as President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an acknowledged arm of CIA/Pentagon propaganda.

On Friday morning Mary Louise Kelly had a piece on how Predator drone attacks are cause for guarded optimism that we may yet kill Osama Bin Laden, whom, you may recall Benazir Bhutto claimed was murdered by the double agent Omar Sheik (about 6 minutes into the interview), just before she herself was murdered. It seems that killing (rekilling?) the straw man OBL has been a preoccupation of MLK (no, not *THE* MLK) for some time. In her pursuit she has made acquaintance with a large number of CIA ops:

"The trail for bin Laden was allowed to get stone cold over seven years," says CIA veteran Bruce Riedel.

Juan Zarate, the top counterterrorism official in President Bush's White House, says, "The administration smells blood here. I think al-Qaida is on its heels."

And of course she's intimately familiar with Ullysees S. Offishalls:
"Predator attacks have killed 11 out of 20 on the Pentagon's most-wanted list along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, say U.S. officials."

Not to be left unnamed, Hank Crumpton:
"a career CIA officer who led the agency's Afghan campaign after Sept. 11. He says Predator strikes are useful on two fronts: They have disrupted terrorist attacks, and they help in the hunt for bin Laden.

'Using the Predator and other drones, it gives us an opportunity to create a great deal of uncertainty, a fear among enemy leaders. It forces them to communicate more, forces them to move more, which provides other opportunities,' he says."

It's so sickening to be invited for an inside seat on the biggest kabuki charade on the planet.

MLK ends with this classic bit of ... what's the word for it when you do the thing that you say you would never do? As in, w"e would never even suggest guarded optimism."

Three Legged Stool Meets Two Legged Stooges

The headlong rush of the US military (and the coalition of the willing) into Iraq back in 2002 and 2003 was notable for the dismal performance of most of the US media (NPR included) which offered virtually no alternatives to war and invasion.

So you might think that a new grand Pentagon plan for settling into Afghanistan (and Pakistan?) for the long haul might be subjected to at least some oppositional analysis. You'll get nothing of the sort on NPR. Search in vain for any consideration that Obama's "new" strategy is likely to end in more misery, death, and failure. Search in vain for any demands that the US end its occupation of Afghanistan. Instead we hear from all the US generals and politicos running the Afpak strategy, with every interview being generally supportive and sympathetic. If you want to get alternative perspectives you'd better go elsewhere. Here's a sampling of the viewpoints you won't hear on NPR news:

• Ray McGovern compares Obama's Afghanistan plan to Vietnam.
• Don Bacon notices eerie echoes of Nixon in Obama's speechifying.
• John Nichols in The Nation castigates MoveOn for failing to oppose Obama's war plans.
• Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation says No to war...and to NATO.
• Andrew Bacevich in Newsweek(!) pushes for withdrawal from Afghanistan.
• Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation asks, "Can you spell quagmire?"

Contrast the divergent range of opinion with the endless pro-Pentagon coverage NPR offers. We get - among others - Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Petraeus, an unabashed homage to the #3 at the Pentagon, Michele Flournoy, and this winner, National Security Adviser James Jones explaining that a winning strategy in Afghanistan is like a stool with the three legs of security, economic development, and rule of law and government (which the US is going to provide -hee, hee).

God forbid I forget to mention the one big voice of dissent that NPR finds worth featuring: Leslie Gelb (Mr. Former Senior Official in the Departments of State and Defense). Gelb wants to basically get out of Afghanistan after declaring that the US has the right to intervene militarily whenever it deems it necessary. His noble reason for urging withdrawal? Because, as he says of those lazy Afghans, "We can't fight harder for their freedom than they will."

Thinktankistan

When the armed-and-dangerous (and well funded, and well connected) in Washington cook up their insane (and murderous) ideas for global victory, you can count on NPR to spice up the crock o'crap and serve it up as a perfectly tasty and rational proposal. All that's needed is a quick trip to the pantry of well-funded/connected (and dangerous) think tanks that are soooo... fond of the projection of US power. This morning was a case in point with experienced tank chef Jackie Northam chattering on about a splendid recipe for drone-bombing the Baluchistan province of Pakistan.

The range of opinions Northam puts in the pot is telling:

• NPR regular Anthony Cordesman (winner of the "Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal") of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
• Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)
• U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill (former NATO commander in Afghanistan who by retirement should be ripe for think-tank or con$ultant harvesting!)
• Seth Jones of the Pentagon-lovin' RAND Corporation.

How's that for a tasty bowl of CSIS, CFR, DOD, NATO, RAND soup....mmm, mmm, good. Anybody have a knife?

In fairness, I have to give Markey a nod. Despite his claim that there appears to be at least passive support for Baluchi Taliban within Pakistan's military, he points out that US bombing in Baluchistan would "cross a red line" and "fuel further unrest" (unrest!!?). Beside that tepid dissent, the rest of the piece features Northam cooking up the apocalyptic alarmism that Juan Cole and other analysts (hee-hee) have derided:

• "Cordesman and other analysts say the Taliban operates openly in Baluchistan...."
• "Removing the leadership in Quetta could severely disrupt Taliban operations in Afghanistan. Some analysts say if the Pakistanis won't do it, the U.S. should take action."

Go Jackie, go! Drone on.

Talking Swat

Last Tuesday on ATC I heard a rather typical Jackie Northam piece regarding the Pakistani truce with TNSM in the Swat valley. She interviewed the usual smorgasbord of CIA, US State Department, and National Security Council shills and - what do you know - they all had basically the same opinions, or as Northam so pointedly stated:

"....none of the analysts interviewed for this report thinks that the truce in the SWAT valley will hold for long."

Honestly, I just didn't have the time, stomach or basic knowledge to sort out Northams lousy (and lazy) journalism, so I emailed Manan Ahmed who posts at the informative ICGA (associated with the other Informed Comment) and who produces the really fine blog, Chapati Mystery. If you haven't visited it, don't let it remain a mystery for too long. I asked him if he'd be willing to post on the NPR piece and allow me to cross-post it here, which he kindly agreed to. Well, he went above and beyond the call - putting NPR in the context of the other rather poor coverage of the Swat valley story. Here's the opening of his post:

READING SWAT

Increasingly, I am convinced that the discourse on Pakistan within the United States needs some major intervention. My fear, or maybe paranoia, is that Pakistan is en-route to be declared "mentally incapacitated" by United States aka "failed state". The impact of such a declaration (whether stated or not) would be that US will need to put a "care-taker" in charge of the mess. The rising frequency of the drone attacks, the extension of missile strikes, the troop "surge" in Afghanistan read as concrete steps towards a radically intrusive strategy towards Pakistan. I will have more to say on this. But I wanted, for the moment to simply bring to your attention some recent writings on Swat.

1. Jackie Northam, "Pakistan Deal With Taliban Draws Critics", All Things Considered, Feb 17, 2009.
Perhaps the worst of all recent pieces - NPR could only find 1. CIA Station Chief, 1. State Department Official and 1. NSC Official to declare that the Swat deal basically meant that Afghanistani Taliban have basically invaded and taken over Swat and that this means the Pakistani army is ridiculously weak. Between the lines, you should understand that the nukes are about to fall into the Taliban hands. Also al-Qaeda. Thank you, NPR.

To continue reading.

Drone Love

I thought NPR couldn't show more love to the unmanned, extrajudicial killing machines of the Pentagon and CIA. There was one at an awesome arms bazaar on January 2007; there was "Drone Daddy" coming home from killing on April 2007, and Drone Bowman salivating over the exquisite precision of killer drones on December 2008.

You can never have too much of a good thing, so NPR brought out Jackie Northam on Monday morning to talk about how the use of killer drones in Pakistan is being "reviewed" by the US. Odd thing is that - except for Andrew Bacevich's blunt assessment that drone attacks represent an expanded war in Pakistan - the rest of the interviewees are rather upbeat about them:

• Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation, using the same "clear, hold and build" propaganda of US counterinsurgency, says that drones may be helpful in the short term, but "over the long run, they need to be supplemented by much broader, longer-term activities to clear hold and build..."
• Stephen Cohen of that "liberal" Brookings Institute claims (with no evidence) that the majority of people killed by drones in Pakistan have been "militants." He also notes how humane they are: "What they do is allow any country that possesses them to pinpoint and target without much collateral damage. The drone in a sense, while it conjures up images of a mechanical monster, in fact is far more effective and more humane than dropping tons of bombs on an area."

After Jackie's softening up operation Monday, Tom Gjelten emerges from the shadows on Tuesday morning with yet another big "scoop" from his employers high officials at the CIA. It's a real performance:

• According to Tom, starting early last year "the CIA turned up the heat. Unmanned aircraft began targeting suspected al-Qaeda leaders and facilities in Pakistan on a routine basis. Now US intelligence officials are reporting the results of the ramped up campaign. The al-Qaeda leadership has been decimated says one official."

• "The enemy is really, really struggling says another official. These attacks he says have produced the broadest deepest and most rapid reduction in al-Qaeda leadership in several years."

• The featured "skeptic" of these claims is Bruce Hoffman (CIA award winner). Hoffman, according to Gjelten "says one effect of the strikes against al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan could be a demoralization of Jihadi warriors in other parts of the world." This is followed by Hoffman's own voice, "Might they not conclude if the United States can reach out and target these highly protected and valued individuals, what happens to the ordinary soldiers?" That is some serious skepticism!

Just in case you get some wild idea that maybe our half-trillion dollar war-stimulus package is a bit much now that al-Qaeda is on the ropes, Gjelten reminds us that we have nothing to fear but the lack of fear itself:

"The officials are careful to say the reported success of the Pakistan campaign does not necessarily mean the al-Qaeda threat has diminished. As many as a hundred fighters have already graduated from training camps in Pakistan and are said to be prepared for terrorist operations in the West."

We then are treated to the puffery of Sec. of War Gates asserting that "we will go after al-Qaeda wherever al-Qaeda is." To which Gjetlen wonders, "And where might that be? Al-Qaeda has been defeated in one area before only to pop up somewhere else. It's operations in Pakistan may be weakened, but officials say the network is now gaining strength in east Africa."

Westward ho! to Africa. Sounds to me like we might need a few thousand more of these humane, freedom lovin' Reapers.

Our Side or Their Side

You might think the brutally stupid 2001 Bush declarations of "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" or the slightly refined "You are either with us or against us" has been thoroughly discredited--but not on NPR.

On Friday's ATC, Jackie Northam, wrapping up NPR's series on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, turns to three main sources for her report. First is Anthony Cordesman whose bio notes "formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense....Cordesman has been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal." Her second expert is Quite an Adventure Bob Grenier who we are told was "the CIA station chief in Pakistan from 1999 to 2002." Her third source is...another CIA spokesperson, Bruce Riedel who Northam - in all seriousness - describes as having "spent nearly three decades in counter-terrorism at the CIA" (and I guess Putin worked for decades on East German democracy for the KGB!).

From this wide range of ideological opinion you can be sure that you won't hear any questioning of the US right to dictate policy in Pakistan/Afghanistan or the history of the US' role in creating the violence of the region. All you hear are differences of tactics.

• Cordesman states that "we have never put significant resources into this war...we have let the Taliban grow in power without providing anything like the resources we provided in Iraq."
• Bob Grenier "says the US may have to abandon the idea of creating one [a strong central Afghan government] and start dealing with the tribal leaders...says it's important to build up local forces in the Pashtun area along the border with Pakistan."
• Lastly, "Riedel says the next President needs to make it clear to Pakistan's new government that those days are over." We then hear Riedel stating that "one of the things he needs to convey to Islamabad is that the time for double dealing is over. You need to be on one side of the war on terror -- our side or their side."

You might wonder where Northam goes with that one. She drones: "for its part the US has stepped up attacks on suspected Taliban hideouts using unmanned predator aircraft..." Yep, we are doing our part...

For better information on the US created horror (and likely continuing nightmare) of Afghanistan without the mind and soul killing "our side, their side" nonsense be sure to read Anand Gopal's recent piece and Nir Rosen's Rolling Stone article. You might hear from people like these on DemocracyNow! but I doubt we'll be hearing from them on NPR anytime soon.

And the Answer Is...

There's something to be said for hearing from establishment figures who are loyal to the role of US as global hegemon. People like Richard Clarke are interesting in that they reveal just how radical and extreme the Bush administration is, but they are not usually critics of US military, economic, and political control of the world. This morning Linda Wertheimer interviews Clarke about the troubles that the US-NATO is experiencing in Afghanistan. Wertheimer asks, "Is there a way to turn the situation in Afghanistan around at this point?"

Now astute readers, what do you think the answer is? Any guesses? Maybe a regional solution? Come on, I think you can guess. Clarke says, "There is, but only by sending in MORE TROOPS, and keeping them there for a while...."

Now that is a smart idea, as the Soviets discovered. Clarke goes on to explain how the problem is also with Pakistan that and US unilateral action without Pakistani permission makes sense because, "any President has to act that way to protect the lives of Americans."

As Barnett Rubin notes in a post on Afghanistan, this flattening of the complex situation in Afghanistan to a rather stupid either/or proposition is common in the US media, but doesn't do anything to inform people, or suggest a way out of the morass of Afghanistan:

"As usual, the Times article presented the alternatives as do nothing, Predator missile strikes, or invasion by U.S. Special Forces, without any discussion of competing Pakistani and Pashtun political agendas for the tribal agencies. A successful and sustainable strategy has to be carried out together with allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, within a political framework that they support."

American Drones

Jackie Northam emerged from Think Tank World to catch us up on how critical "relations with Pakistan's military are...to US national security." Her story simply endorses and builds on the US government's long policy of focusing on maintaining (and engorging) the Pakistani military at the expense of Pakistani civil society.

Ahmed Rashid in an interview in Harper's Magazine offers a stinging assessment of this kind of approach:

"The U.S. has relied upon the Pakistan army in the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960, in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and so for it to depend again on the army in the war on terrorism is not unusual. The problem is that this is not an external war but an internal war or even a civil war in parts of NWFP [Northwest Frontier of Pakistan]. Here what is needed is a government and local authorities which have the confidence of the people so that they can fight the extremists but also deal with public problems and deliver services. None of this the army is capable of doing and the Americans have utterly failed to realize this."

NPR's Jackie Northam likewise has "utterly failed to realize this," too. But, God forbid history or critical thinking get in the way. NPR can always go dipping into the pro-US government think tanks for backup help. Northam turns to

• Fredrick Barton with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The CSIS states that it was founded for "finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world."
• Kurt Campbell (notice his bio is from his days at the CSIS )the CEO of the Center for a New American Security.
  
• Professor Anatol Levin with the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. He has connections to IISS, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the New America Foundation.
  

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with NPR interviewing these people about Pakistan, but their perspectives are all grounded in an approval of the US as a "soft" imperial power in the world. All are believers in the essential goodness of the US imperial mission in the world. There is no significant range of opinion - which is typical of NPR.

I guess you can't expect much from a story that begins with Steve Inskeep saying, "Here's a question for you: What does Pakistan's military have in common with the game of cricket?
Well, they both have intricate traditions and rules, they're both difficult for outsiders to follow, and according to some observers, the army and the popular sport may be the only two things still holding Pakistan together."

Northam closes her report by noting that the US has stepped up its "counterterrorism" role in Pakistan and states that "there have been several air strikes recently on suspected al-Qaeda hideouts - reportedly from American drones."

Inskeep opening, Northam closing: I'd definitely say American drones.

Swiss Cheesing History

One of my biggest gripes about NPR is how the distasteful historical record of the United States is redacted in stories where it should feature prominently (e.g. Guatemala, East Timor, Colombia, etc.) The recent coverage of Pakistan is striking in this regard.

Here are a few interesting remarks aired on NPR in the last two days:

Dec. 27, 2007 - ATC : (Siegel) "Pakistan has never been a place of stability, politically or otherwise."

Dec. 28 2007 - ME: (Northam) "Bhutto was a critical component of the Bush Administration's plans for Pakistan to try to bring democracy to the country and stabilize it."

Dec 28, 2007 - ATC: (Siegel) "...the history of the country as one abnormality, one aberration after another" and "when you try to sort out what is the root cause of the political problems...what is it...what's missing?"

In this last piece Siegel is talking with Adil Najam, a professor of public relations at Boston University and editor of the blog, All Things Pakistan. The piece was really strange in that Najam commented that three things explain Pakistan's troubled history: "our history," "our geography," and "our impatience." In the history the United States never came up (odd); even the BBC has a rather harsh take on that bit of history: "Last, but not least, the Americans have tended to use their crucial financial and military support selectively against democratic governments." Najam then examines geography, mentioning Pakistan's neighbors India, China, Afghanistan, and Iran. He notes that this and its strategic location have meant that "outside forces always [have been] very interested in Pakistan." But again no mention of the United States.

For a great antidote to this selective amnesia check out this great post on Manan Ahmed's blog, Chapati Mystery. Manan was on today's Democracy Now! along with Tariq Ali and it is well worth watching/listening to.

The Good, the Bad and...

• The Good

I have to credit NPR with doing a pretty good interview this morning on the dissenting Army captains who published a signed opinion piece in the Washington Post. These officers, who have left the military, offer one interesting take on the war in Iraq. It was especially refreshing to hear them after all the "upbeat" news spinning out of Iraq. Wouldn't it be great if NPR didn't wait for people like these former captains to publish something in the Washington Post and instead did a little more original searching for multiple views and opinions on the Iraq nightmare? NPR's website also links to the website of Luis Carlos Montalvan, one of the captains, which is worth a look.

• The Bad

Wouldn't be NPR without the bad, would it? Jackie Northam provides one of the stupidest reports on Pakistan and Musharraf that I've heard in a long time. As Porter notes in today's Open Thread below, where is Philip Reeve's expertise on Musharraf and his disappearing uniform? He last talked on the topic over a week ago. Contrast his thoughtful pieces with this worthless filler from Northam:

Inskeep asks her if Musharraf has really given up anything by "taking off his uniform." She responds, "He has given up an enormous amount of power and influence" even though she later admits to Inskeep that he "he handpicked the next head of the army." Then Northam - apparently thinking she's a walking Zogby poll and can speak for the 164,741,924 citizens of Pakistan - tells us "people seem to like him here; they think it's a good choice." In spite of serious human rights shortcomings, Northam reminds us that this handpicked chief "is pro-American though...and most importantly for the US is that he's on board with this fight against terrorism as is Musharraf. And that's important Steve...." Talk about on board - Bush couldn't have said it better himself - or could he?

• And...

And the ugly? Well there's always plenty of that on NPR, but the commenter, artes moriendi, in the Open Thread below has a deserving candidate - Mara Liasson's sorry piece on the Clintons.

Innoculate Yourself

I just have to recommend again Juan Cole's Informed Comment and the great group blog that he is part of called Informed Comment Global Affairs (great stuff on Pakistan). A great way to experience the alternate reality of NPR-world is to read these blogs in the morning and then tune in to NPR . I've noticed how little NPR has focused on the fact that the target of General Musharraf's coup (he's not really the president now is he?) is the judiciary of Pakistan - not the violent Islamists and terrorists cited as the reason for the crackdown.

Expanding Pakistan

I have to concur with readers of this blog that NPR News does a service to listeners by regularly featuring Philip Reeves' reports from Pakistan. NPR deserves further credit for its interview this morning with Moshin Hamid and Kamila Shamsie, two Pakistani novelists. They really take apart the one dimensional views of Pakistan that most US citizens are presented with in the press (views that can lead someone like Sen. Obama to assume that Pakistan is ours for the bombing).

Now if NPR could just extend this kind of layered reporting to the rest of the world. One is allowed to wish, eh?